The great to-do over the prosecution of Bruce Steir tends to divide people into two camps: those who believe Steir, and those who believe the dead woman's family.
To put the case in a nutshell, Steir performed an abortion on Sharon Hamplton in 1996. Sharon died on the car ride home. It turns out that Steir had perforated her uterus and bowel. Steir claims that he was unaware of Sharon's injury, that she seemed okay to him when he discharged her. But one of Steir's aides claims that Steir said that he had "pulled bowel," then stuffed the bowel back in and sent Sharon home without following the usual precautions for such injuries.
I believe Sharon's family and the aide, for a very good reason.
I don't know Steir's current National Abortion Federation affiliation status, but I know that he has been involved in some of their activities. What, pray tell, would NAF have to do with the case?
One of the things I did while working at Life Dynamics was listen to years' worth of tapes of National Abortion Federation meetings and Risk Management Seminars. Some of what I heard shocked even me, and I'm hard to shock.
In one Risk Management Seminar session, a participant came to the microphone during the discussion period and indicated that when he pulled bowel (extracted part of a patient's bowel through a perforation in her uterus), his preferred method of treatment (if you can call it that) was to stuff the bowel back through the perforation, administer medications to make the uterus contract and control bleeding, monitor the woman more carefully in recovery, and if she seemed okay, send her home none the wiser.
The moderator was appalled, and scolded this fellow. He pointed out that even if there was no obvious injury to the bowel, it might be bruised and damaged. The recommended procedure is to admit the patient to the hospital and examine her bowel, and observe her for signs of further injury. The moderator then asked how many of the participants present followed the "cross your fingers" method of stuffing the bowel back in and hoping for the best. Even after he had scolded the first man, he was able to count six participants who raised their hands and admitted that they did this to their patients. That made a total of seven abortionists at a National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar who were willing to admit that they played this particular brand of Russian Roulette with patients' lives. NAF abortionists are supposed to be the best, and one would think that those who go to the time and expense to attend NAF seminars are those who care most about patient safety. And if seven of the very best admit to this sort of thing, how many are really doing it?
I knew it was only a matter of time before one of these bowel-stuffing abortionists killed somebody. What surprises me is how much support Steir is getting.
Supposedly Sharon's medical records from the clinic support Steir's story. But abortion clinics are notorious for sloppy record keeping. When patient "K.B." died at CRASH, inspectors found that her condition was charted as "pink, alert, responsive" post-operatively -- despite the fact that she was quite dead. It turned out that the note was written before the woman's abortion even began. One inspector at a California abortion clinic observed a doctor making recovery notes on patient charts without examining the patients. Is it really hard to believe that Steir didn't carefully document his mistakes? What motive would he have to document pulling bowel and stuffing it back in? On the other hand, what motive does the aide have to tell the authorities that Steir said that he had "pulled bowel?"
Who do you believe? I believe the aide. You can believe Steir and the National Abortion Federation if you want. But do so at your own risk.
Related Links
(demonstrating pro-choice activists' support for this man who killed a woman in a "safe and legal" abortion)
To put the case in a nutshell, Steir performed an abortion on Sharon Hamplton in 1996. Sharon died on the car ride home. It turns out that Steir had perforated her uterus and bowel. Steir claims that he was unaware of Sharon's injury, that she seemed okay to him when he discharged her. But one of Steir's aides claims that Steir said that he had "pulled bowel," then stuffed the bowel back in and sent Sharon home without following the usual precautions for such injuries.
I believe Sharon's family and the aide, for a very good reason.
I don't know Steir's current National Abortion Federation affiliation status, but I know that he has been involved in some of their activities. What, pray tell, would NAF have to do with the case?
One of the things I did while working at Life Dynamics was listen to years' worth of tapes of National Abortion Federation meetings and Risk Management Seminars. Some of what I heard shocked even me, and I'm hard to shock.
In one Risk Management Seminar session, a participant came to the microphone during the discussion period and indicated that when he pulled bowel (extracted part of a patient's bowel through a perforation in her uterus), his preferred method of treatment (if you can call it that) was to stuff the bowel back through the perforation, administer medications to make the uterus contract and control bleeding, monitor the woman more carefully in recovery, and if she seemed okay, send her home none the wiser.
The moderator was appalled, and scolded this fellow. He pointed out that even if there was no obvious injury to the bowel, it might be bruised and damaged. The recommended procedure is to admit the patient to the hospital and examine her bowel, and observe her for signs of further injury. The moderator then asked how many of the participants present followed the "cross your fingers" method of stuffing the bowel back in and hoping for the best. Even after he had scolded the first man, he was able to count six participants who raised their hands and admitted that they did this to their patients. That made a total of seven abortionists at a National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar who were willing to admit that they played this particular brand of Russian Roulette with patients' lives. NAF abortionists are supposed to be the best, and one would think that those who go to the time and expense to attend NAF seminars are those who care most about patient safety. And if seven of the very best admit to this sort of thing, how many are really doing it?
I knew it was only a matter of time before one of these bowel-stuffing abortionists killed somebody. What surprises me is how much support Steir is getting.
Supposedly Sharon's medical records from the clinic support Steir's story. But abortion clinics are notorious for sloppy record keeping. When patient "K.B." died at CRASH, inspectors found that her condition was charted as "pink, alert, responsive" post-operatively -- despite the fact that she was quite dead. It turned out that the note was written before the woman's abortion even began. One inspector at a California abortion clinic observed a doctor making recovery notes on patient charts without examining the patients. Is it really hard to believe that Steir didn't carefully document his mistakes? What motive would he have to document pulling bowel and stuffing it back in? On the other hand, what motive does the aide have to tell the authorities that Steir said that he had "pulled bowel?"
Who do you believe? I believe the aide. You can believe Steir and the National Abortion Federation if you want. But do so at your own risk.
Related Links
(demonstrating pro-choice activists' support for this man who killed a woman in a "safe and legal" abortion)
Dr. Bruce Steir Needs Your Help
Pledge of Support For Dr. Bruce Steir
Steir's Defense